anything like she did today, she'll win and win big. if she performs as well as she did today, look out. that's "hardball." thanks for being with us. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right thought. >> good evening, americans, and welcome to "the ed show" from new york. any time republicans try to beat up on a clinton, it's always great tv, especially when they get whupped like they did today. this is "the ed show." let's get to work. >> for me, this is not just a matter of policy, it's personal. >> secretary of state hillary clinton rips open the right wing attack on benghazi. >> the fact is we had four dead americans. >> and knocks down hack -- >> because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they would go kill some americans. >> -- after hack -- >> what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. >> -- after hack. senator chris murphy, former admiral joe sestak, and joy reid

break down the triumph of clinton's testimony. boehner gets a deal on the debt ceiling. congressman chris van hollen takes us into the funny numbers he had to push. if you want another concord bridge, i got some buddies. >> ted nugent is assembling a moron militia. we'll show you what he is going to be up against. the transaction tax. americans pay it every day on everything we buy. but why doesn't wall street have to pony up? and the latest on the quest for filibuster reform. will the senate actually change the rules and get something done? senator bernie sanders with us tonight. good to have you with us tonight, folks. thanks for watching. if you wanted to know why congress has a record low approval rating, all you had to do was watch the circus on capitol hill today. outgoing secretary of state hillary clinton testified before senate and house committees today about the attack on the u.n. consulate in benghazi, libya.

the committee members already have access to the full accountability review board report on the attack, as well as classified intelligence reports. secretary clinton has repeatedly taken responsibility for state department failures during the attack, but republican senators were still obsessed with one detail -- united nations ambassador susan rice and her description of the attack on september 16th. tea party senator ron johnson of wisconsin grilled secretary clinton over something she had nothing to do with. >> do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened would have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? i mean, that was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained. >> well, but senator -- >> within hours, if not days. >> senator, i, you know, when you're in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on. >> i realize that's a good excuse. >> number two -- well, no, it's

the fact. >> no answer was good enough for senator johnson. eventually secretary clinton had enough. >> we were misled that there was supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that. and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact and the american people could have known that within days and they didn't know that. >> with all due respect, the fact is we had four dead americans. >> i understand. >> was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they would go kill some americans. what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. >> senator johnson gave his condescending response to buzzfeed regarding secretary clinton's answer. i think she just decide she was going to describe emotionally the four dead americans, the hero, and use that as her trump card to get out of the questions. it was a good way of getting out of really having to respond to me.

no egos on capitol hill there, are there, folks? senator john mccain is another guy who thinks the american people were misled about benghazi. he accused secretary clinton about not being honest again today. >> there are many questions that are unanswered. and the answers, frankly, that you have given this morning are not satisfactory to me. >> strong words from senator mccain. he must have a very detailed question for secretary clinton if he wants to get some answers. >> the american people deserve to know answers, and they certainly don't deserve false answers. and the answers that were given to the american people on september 15th by the ambassador of the united nations were false. >> no, same old question about ambassador rice. here is a reminder to senator mccain. every senator, including john mccain, knows the answer to the question about susan rice. ambassador rice went on the sunday shows with talking points approved by the cia. the cia informed members of congress about it two months

ago. democratic senator dick durbin of illinois wanted to make clear what happens when intelligence information is still evolving. >> and i'd like to refer to five words for them to reflect on. iraqi weapons of mass destruction. we were told by every level of government here there were iraqi weapons of mass destruction that justified a war, the invasion by the united states. we are still searching for those weapons. they didn't exist. >> clearly, the strangest behavior of the day came from senator rand paul of kentucky. the tea party darling, the leader of the tea party used the hearing to grandstand and advance his political positions. >> had i been president at the time and i found that you did not read the cables from benghazi, you did not read the cables from ambassador stevens, i would have relieve you'd of your post. i think it's inexcusable.

>> tough talk from president paul. his question to secretary clinton should help get to the bottom of things, don't you think? >> now, my question is the u.s. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to turkey out of libya? >> to turkey? >> it just gets weirder from there. >> i will have to take that question for the record. nobody's ever raised that with me. >> it's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from libya, and that they may have weapons. >> ah, i bet you can figure out where those news reports came from. fox news and other conservative outlets are pushing a conspiracy theory about gun running from libya to turkey in order to arm the rebels in syria. it's pretty crazy stuff, but it doesn't stop there. >> at any time did you see the initial attack on a monitor?

or the president? >> congressman, there was no monitor, there was no realtime. he got the surveillance videos some weeks later. that was the first time we saw any video of the attack. >> take a guess where this crackpot theory came from. >> oh, and did i mention the state department was watching this unfold in realtime. >> really? hannity's got intel there was a direct line of video feed of the attack. places like breitbart.com also pushed the video conspiracy. this was not a useful hearing at all. no new useful information was obtained today. this was political hackery at its worst, or should i say at its best for the republicans. republicans used this hearing for everything except getting to the truth. now they can go on fox news and tell their side of the story. they can use their comments maybe in fundraising videos. they went after hillary clinton. you can see it tonight, that all of the local newscasts from where these house members are

joe smith really got after hillary clinton today. he's our kind of guy. i mean, it is red meat to the tea partiers. but these republicans, they are doing nothing for those who died in they tack. secretary clinton continues to cooperate with the investigation because it is important for the unanimous and the american people to have all the details. republicans were performing basically for the cameras today. maybe next time they can actually serve the people who rely on them. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's question, did republicans who questioned hillary clinton embarrass themselves today? text a for yes. text b for no to 622639. you can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com. we'll bring results later on in the show. joining me tonight joy reid, managing editor of thegrio.com and admiral joe sestak, in the united states navy for 30 years,

also worked in naval intelligence. great to have both of you with us tonight. joy, you first. did we gain any ground today, any new information? >> you know what, ed, that spectacle that you just showed, i need to get my cell phone out. that was embarrassing. these guys got up there and absolutely embarrassed themselves. think about this for a second. we had a breech of a compound of a u.s. consulate office -- a consulate in libya where we had four americans die. and the only thing that they want to know is whether or not it started with a protest? that's the most important piece of information? that's what the american people have got to know in order to get to the bill of this? what about the question whether congress provided adequate funding for security at this compound for our people there. what about potential intelligence might have been removed from there? because we do know that the marine there's to guard, the consulates are to guard intelligence. aren't there more substantive questions? they're obsessed with what susan rice said on the sunday shows.

and it's absurd. and by the way, the most ridiculous, almost comical line that was used at the hearings today was rand paul saying "had i been president." give me a break. is he getting his info from info wars, breitbart? that's what they're using to question our secretary of state? it's absurd. >> admiral, what was your take away today from the entire ordeal on capitol hill? how did secretary clinton do in her testimony? >> i think secretary clinton was exactly as she was a few davis the incident occurred. she stood up and said i am responsible. she stood up and said today look, the state department isn't perfect and i am responsible for that. but she also lightly turned the mirror towards congress and said look, when you start finger-pointing, look in the mirror yourself. as joy just said, since 2010, they cut the infrastructure funding to defend our consulates and our embassies overseas by $300 million. i think accountability and having investigations is absolutely needed as you said, ed, to get to transparency and

find out the facts so it doesn't happen again. but this shouldn't be about partisanship. >> admiral, what about this constantly going back to susan rice, constantly not being satisfied with the first answers that came out, and constantly harping on talking points which the cia said that they provided. you were in intel. how does this unfold? >> well, when i worked at the white house, and intelligence would come up to the president. it was always taken there never seemed to be a one-armed intelligence officer. they always seemed to say on the one hand, but on the other hand. intelligence, getting it quickly from out there back here is very tough. and usually as admiral crowd, chairman of the joint chiefs once said, the first report is always wrong. in the next incident, our intelligence community doesn't give its best first assessment because it's even too cautious because it's turned into a partisan football like has happened on this. get the facts. deal with the them and fix it for next time. >> admiral, what was your

response when you saw rand paul say what he said? >> so out of line. secretary clinton, who i happen to have the honor of knowing when i am working a little bit within the white house, and a little bit when i was in congress, i have to tell you, her stewardship of the state department has been impressive. i think for him to sit back like that and make such a claim when he has no concept about what rolls into the state department is out of line. >> joy, this was an example of reaction on fox news. i want to play this. here it is. >> i was waiting for one of those senators, in fact, i put it up on facebook, fail, corker, fail, rubio, fail. down the line, they had her -- they had her with her own word, and they for some reason went back to the yard. >> what is the blood lust for hillary clinton? >> i think what you're seeing, ed, these are the first shots being fired in the 2016 campaign. and i think a lot of republicans thought this was their opportunity to publicly take down hillary clinton ahead of a run that she hasn't even

announced. and i think the idea is that hillary clinton is a politically potentially potent force coming from the democratic party. and this was an opportunity, frankly, for a lot of back benchers whose names are not known like ron johnson, people who are not stars on the senate stage, to get out there, be on television and make a name for themselves. i think clearly that's what rand paul was doing. i think ron johnson and others were trying to raise their profile at their expense. >> and admiral, we may never know the motivation for the attack. is that a fair statement? >> we may never know exactly what it was. look, we've gotten much closer to exactly what occurred. and secretary clinton said what is most important of all. we'll take these lessons and try to ensure it doesn't happen again. and second, we will get those who did this crime. >> great to have both of you with us tonight. thank you so much. remember, to answer your questions at the bottom of the screen. share your thoughts with us on twitter at edshow and on facebook. we want to though what you think. next, the secretary of state addresses the problems we face, and offers a blueprint moving forward.

the question is, is congress going to fund it? are they going to act? senator chris murphy will join me when we come back. stay with us.

coming up, paul ryan's budget i thought was rejected by americans last november. now he is trying it again. he just doesn't learn. congressman chris van hollen on why paul ryan's math just doesn't add up in the latest debt ceiling deal. and later, you pay a transaction tax on everything you buy. so do i. but why do wall street traders get off scot-free? you know david kay johnson's got the answer. he'll join us for the discussion tonight why lawmakers should make wall street ante up. and don't forget listen to my radio show on sirius xm radio monday through friday noon to 3:00 p.m. share your thoughts on facebook and twitter using the hash tag edshow. i'm going to have to tweet out i've never even tweeted out hannity intelligence.

some people on this committee want to call the tragedy in benghazi the worst since 9/11. it misunderstands the nature of 4,000 americans plus lost over ten years of war in iraq fought under false pretenses. >> who wouldn't agree with that? that was senator chris murphy of connecticut, calling out the political theater at today's congressional hearings on benghazi. secretary of state hillary clinton did a masterful job sidestepping the political attacks, telling two back-to-back panels her department is moving forward and taking action, implementing 29

recommendations of an independent review board focusing on high-threat posts. >> nobody is more committed to getting this right. i am determined to leave the state department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure. >> secretary of state hillary clinton put the focus on policy and swatted away attempts to revisit talking points or discuss susan rice's television appearances addressing the broader issues at hand. clinton pointed out that america's challenges in the middle east and the growing threat from extremists in northern africa. >> benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. the arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. instability in mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we saw just last week in algeria. >> but in order to improve diplomatic efforts, congress

needs to act. secretary clinton called out the congressional holds being placed on foreign aid and bilateral assistance. >> i am one who believes that we have to both walk and chew gum at the same time. we have to deal with our own economy and our fiscal situation. that is a given, because that is the source of our strength and our capacity. but we also have to be smart about making the right investments in diplomacy and development to try to solve problems and prevent them. >> i'm joined tonight with senator chris murphy of connecticut, who is a member of the senate foreign relations committee. senator, good to have you with us tonight. moving forward, security obviously is an issue. so getting funding and help from republicans shouldn't be hard after this hearing. that's what i see today. your thoughts on it. >> well, listen, the republicans have had chance after chance to do the right thing here. the irony is just as thick as

the walls of the united states congress, when you think that they stripped $300 million out of the secretary's security requests before benghazi. but it gets even worse, ed. after benghazi, the president and the secretary of state said listen, we've got to do better. so they put before congress a request to just move $1.3 billion of unallocated funds for iraq into security accounts to try to protect our embassies. the senate put it in the supplemental bill for sandy. and guess what? the house republicans stripped it out and didn't put it in their version of the sandy bill. so even today, after we know what happened, the republicans are still not willing to give her the resources to protect our diplomats abroad. >> senator, what was this hearing about today? was it about getting and finding solutions or something else? >> listen, to me, this was simply about politics, right? about two-thirds of the republicans that asked questions asked questions about a handful of tv appearances by susan rice.

the fact is if republicans asked just a small percentage of the questions that they've been asking about these television appearances about the war in iraq, we wouldn't be talking about saving four lives, we would be talking about saving 4,000 lives. and so i'm glad she's being as transparent as she has been. but it's about time to focus on something bigger than this. >> senator, you have access to these intelligence materials. did you learn anything today? was there any new information that came out today? >> no, i don't think there was anything new here. and i think what is refreshing is that the secretary is spending five and a half hours testifying before congress, has been open about their failings, and they want to fix things. and again, that's a big difference between this administration and the last. every administration makes mistakes. the question is do you learn from them and change. and that's what today was about. if we learned anything, we learned that the secretary's commitment is stronger than ever to try to make sure this never happens again. >> what was your reaction when they focused in on susan rice's

television appearance when that has been all cleared up, at least the american public thinks it has because the cia supplied those talking points. but yet john mccain, rand paul, johnson and some others are still fixated on those tv appearances. what was your reaction when they went down that road? >> that the republicans have the same old tired political talking points that they have had for the last year. >> so this was nothing but a political show and theater of hackery today, would you agree with that? >> well, listen, the secretary swatted away every single one of those questions. and i think a lot of them ended up looking pretty small compared to a secretary of state who said listen, all the questions have been answered, and we need to focus on much bigger things. so i expect that, frankly, her performance may put an end to these susan rice questions. >> sure. >> i thought she was masterful. >> and the state department's plan of action moving forward, are you confident it's sufficient? >> it's sufficient as long as we fund it. but, again, the fact that the

republicans had a chance to do it in the house of representatives and still wouldn't suggests, you know, i don't know what their motivations are. but clearly they're not serious about giving her the resources she needs. but let's say this last one thing is that we also have to understand the limitations of the security that we can provide. we're not going to go into bunkers. our diplomats are going to be on the front lines. and although we're going to do everything we can to try to protect them, we shouldn't expect that if 150 armed marauders show up at a security facility, there might be no level of protection that we can afford them. we're going to do our best, but these are dangerous times for diplomats. and thank god that we have those brave men and women out there serving this country. >> after all the things that senator clinton -- or secretary of state hillary clinton said today, it would it seems to me that the republicans would be very concerned about some of her comments about north africa and what kind of a commitment we need to make there. but they're more interested in television appearances, i guess. senator chris murphy, great to

have you with us tonight. thank you so much. coming up, he is back and he is gunning for social programs again. paul ryan promises to pay off the debt and balance the budget in just what? ten years? he swears it won't hurt the middle class. do you believe that? we'll check the math next. and the deadline for the filibuster reform is approaching fast. there are offers on the table, but so far no deal. vermont senator bernie sanders is here to tell us what's the latest and what can fix it. stay tuned. [ washer and dryer sounds ]

for the things you can't wash, freshen them with febreze. ♪ because febreze doesn't just cover up odors... it penetrates deep into fabrics to eliminate odors and leaves a light, fresh scent. just another way febreze helps you breathe happy. in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien.

allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

welcome back to "the ed show." thanks for stay with us tonight. the most conservative members of the house got a gift from speaker boehner today. tea party republicans helped pass a bill extending the debt limit until mid-may. in return, both house and senate have got to pass a budget or their pay is going to be withheld. bottom line, the republicans just kicked the can down the road. they're still playing games with the debt ceiling. that's the bottom line there. in the meantime, representative paul ryan is back in the picture. he is stepping back into the political spotlight. he is now in charge of creating a budget that will eliminate the federal deficit within ten years? paul ryan was the guy who lost the last election because most americans didn't like his budget ideas in the first place. but now ryan claims voters actually didn't reject republican principles. ryan told "the wall street journal," "we have to do a better job of explaining why we think our ideas are better for

everybody and why they're better for fighting poverty." paul ryan wants us to believe that he can fight poverty, pay off the debt and balance the budget in a new number, now ten years. do you believe that? i got some swampland for you down in florida if you do. let's do some quick math here. analysts say ryan will have to cut about $800 billion in federal spending, including defense. that's 22% of the federal budget. so ryan would have to cut spending by one-fifth in ten years. those cuts go way beyond anything paul ryan suggested during the campaign. his old plan balanced the budget in 30 years. but he still wanted to cut programs for the poor by 62%. ryan's old budget would have slashed federal medicaid funding by almost a third. paul ryan's new budget plan will have to be leaner and meaner than the last one.

but ryan claims the numbers will eventually add up. >> this isn't a republican or a democratic thing. this is a math thing. >> a math thing. let's turn to congressman chris van hollen, who is the ranking democratic member on the house budget committee. congressman, good to have you with us tonight. >> ed, it's good to be with you. your analysis is spot-on. >> although i do not have the swampland, i was just kidding on that one. >> right. >> what happened today on the debt ceiling? i mean, are we going to go through this again in another three, four months? >> well, that's right. look, the little bit of good news here, ed, was that republicans recognized that the united states has to pay their bills. the bad news is they said, well, we only have to pay our bills as a country until may 19th. and so they've left this huge uncertainty hanging over the economy. we know that when they did this in 2011, it produced the month with the lowest job growth.

it meant that our credit rating got downgraded. so while republicans have spent the last couple of years saying we need more certainty in the economy, what they have done is put more uncertainty in the economy. that will hurt the economy. and in order to get their right wing tea party folks to even do that, to even extend the debt court of appealing to may 19th, they had to promise them that they were going to slash spending. and the only way to make the math work, i mean, paul ryan wants to talk about the math, the only way to make the math work in the way they approached the budget is to rescind and violate all the promises we made to our seniors, devastate medicaid, transfer rising health care costs on to seniors in medicare, cut investments in education that are important for our kids, all, by the way, all while protecting the tax breaks and loopholes for folks at the high end of the income scale. >> you know, my question for ryan would be, and of course to you, the republicans aren't

going to go along with these kinds of cuts in defense. i mean, i think the democrats would certainly pare back on defense spending. but the republicans -- so isn't this somewhat of a phantom budget that he is trying to throw out right now? >> well, that's exactly right. look, republicans have said for the last couple of months that the across-the-board cuts to defense spending are reckless. and democrats have said the way they do it and the arbitrary way doesn't make sense. and the cut cans across the board to nondefense spending like nih and air traffic control and all of that, that doesn't make sense. now all of the sudden within the republican caucus, the tea party wing has gotten them to reverse their position. now the cuts they said were reckless, no problem, we're going to make that happen, even though the congressional budget office has said that will hurt our economy. so on top of keeping this debt ceiling cloud over the economy, they're talking about these across-the-board meat ax cuts

that will also hurt the economy, when we should be focused on jobs and economic growth. >> congressman chris van hollen, good to have you with us tonight on "the ed show." >> good to be with you. thank you. >> there is a lot more coming up in the next half hour of "the ed show." stay with us. ted nugent goes off the deep end. >> the barack obama gang attempting to reimplement the tyranny of king george. >> we'll show you what he and his buddies will be up against. we all pay a transaction tax every day, but not the fat cats on wall street. david cay johnston tells us how it could make a dig difference. and next, vermont senator bernie sanders will tell us if the senate filibuster rules are about to change.

welcome back to "the ed show." at this hour, there is still no finalized deal between democrats and republicans on filibuster reform in the senate, but new details are coming out.

but no matter what happens, it looks like the all important talking filibuster is off the table. senator dick durbin of illinois told reporters today, quote, i would say the talking filibuster at this point does not have 51 votes. on tuesday, majority leader harry reid offered mitch mcconnell a proposal on filibuster reform without the talking filibuster. reid says he has the 51 votes needed to move forward with the constitutional option on his offer, if republicans don't play ball. now republicans in the 112 congress abused the filibuster over and over. in fact, 380 times they did it to obstruct president obama's agenda, and senate democrats i think are sick of this. senator tom harkin of iowa said on my radio show today without meaningful filibuster reform, it could be a rough second term for president obama. >> i said to obama one time we were in iowa, the night before the election, he was in iowa, the night before the election, i said to him, i said, look, i want some of your time after the election.

he said sure, what about? filibuster. i said you get reelected, if you get reelected and we don't change the filibuster rules in the senate, you might as well take a four-year vacation, because you won't get anything done. >> senator harkin also told me about the so-called 41 rule that would require 41 republicans to vote in order to maintain a filibuster instead of requiring the majority party to find 60 votes to break one. folks, 60 votes, it isn't going to happen in the senate. not in this political climate. senator reid had included the 41 rule in his proposal, but politico reported late tonight he dropped the rule after talks with mcconnell. now, this is just coming to me right now. my head is about to explode on live television. how many elections, harry, do the democrats have to win? how many mandates from the people have to be sent to washington that we need to move

forward on this? why is the minority party running this country? that's my first reaction on this. for more, let's turn to senator bernie sanders of vermont for his reaction. senator, good to have you with us tonight. i've got to ask you, if the talking filibuster isn't in it, if the 41 rule isn't in it, where is the teeth in this filibuster reform that might happen? your thoughts, sir. >> there won't be much in the way of teeth. what you'll see is some improved efficiencies. the senate will move a little bit faster. but in essence, what tom harkin said is absolutely right. what we have seen is an unparalleled level of obstructionism time after time when we're trying to create jobs, trying to deal with global warming, trying to deal with income inequality. they throw 60 vote, 60 votes, 60 votes. if we don't have the talking filibuster, having 41 votes to maintain the filibuster, then

we're simply not going to be able to address the serious problems facing the american people. >> so does this mean in your opinion that the 113th could be a lot like the 112th if the minority party decides to act like that? >> it won't be as bad. i think this will be some improvements in the ability to move things along in an expeditious manner. we have two more votes. but at the end of the day, ed, on any serious issue facing working families, facing global warming, we do not have 60 votes. so the will of the american people will not be carried out. this country has enormous problems. and it distresses me every single day that while we may have the majority, over 50 votes we have 55 votes, we still can't do what the american people want us to do. >> well, i've quoted you often, senator sanders. another quote from tom harkin

today on my radio show. he said he's tired of the senate being held hostage by the dead hand of the past. there are just some senators in the democratic caucus that simply don't want to change this rule. and the dead hand of the past was rules set up by previous senate chambers. how frustrating is this going to be? doesn't the country deserve to move forward on legislation? because we all know what the republicans would do if they were in this position. >> ed, i think you're absolutely right. look, in politics, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. we all know that. but right now, one senator could have a staff member call up the cloakroom and say hey, put a hold on that bill. we're not going to go forward to even debate that legislation unless we get 60 votes. so what ends up happening is not only can't we pass the legislation we want, we can't even have the debate for the american people to understand who is on which side.

so to me, yeah, i share harkin's views. i am tired of it. i don't mind losing. sometimes you're not going to get 50 votes. but i am damn tired of seeing us not even being able to go forward on a debate on issues of enormous concern to this country. >> what is harry reid afraid of, if your opinion? what is it? >> i can't speak, i really can't speak for reid, and i don't know. i think the bottom line is i suspect that he believes that we do not have the 51 votes that we'll need for the constitutional option. what many of us believe on the first day, and we've extended that, it is still the first day, that we can write new rules. that with 51 votes, we can say that we can have a talking filibuster. if you want to oppose a bill if you want 60 votes, you get on the floor and you keep talking.

but when you stop talking, we're going to go to 51 votes and we're going to pass it. >> senator bernie sanders with us tonight. thank you so much for joining us, senator. i would like to know who those senators are that don't want to go along with it. we'll do that story tomorrow. ted nugent says he is ready for an armed revolt. i remind him, really, what he is up against, next.

and we are back. we always love hearing from our viewers on our facebook and twitter page. social media lit up last night after i threw rush limbaugh's first book into the trash can to mark the end of a conservative era in this country and the new center left era in america. on facebook, frank falcon writes, there you are, stick a fork in him he is done. only people who embrace divisiveness like limbaugh. he thinks a sound effect of flush would have made a -- made it more perfect. i agree with that. we should have done that. you can go to our facebook page right now and join the

conversation. and don't forget to like the ed show when you're there. we appreciate that. tonight in our survey, i asked did republicans who questioned hillary clinton embarrass themselves today? 95% of you say yes. 5% of you say no. coming up, it's time for american lawmakers to take a page from our friends across the pond when it comes to out-of-control speculation. i'll have that story next with david cay johnston. stay with us.

welcome back to "the ed show." well, ted nugent, he's back at it again. the failed rock star turned pro-gun mascot was interviewed by guns.com at a shooting, hunting, and outdoor trade show, and suggested he is ready for an armed revolt against president obama. nugent received a visit from the united states secret service agents last year after speaking at the nra's annual convention. so at least they know where to find this guy.

>> i'm part of a very great experiment in self-government where we the people determine our own pursuit of happiness and our own individual freedom and liberty, not to be confused with the barack obama gang who believes in we the sheeple and actually is attempting to reimplement the tyranny of king george that we escaped from in 1776. and if you want another concord bridge, i got some buddies. >> okay, nugent is referring to the start of the american revolutionary war when colonial and british troops assembled at concord, massachusetts, and an unidentified soldier opened fire, better known as the shot . >> announcer: with over 200 pages in h newtown massacre that took the lives of 20 children and six adults?

this is what the extreme right calls proper discourse, as we continue to experience daily tragedies related to gun violence. and this type of paranoid and dangerous rhetoric is being adopted by mainstream republican lawmakers? just read mitch mcconnell's e-mail to his supporters warning them about gun grabbers in the united states senate. go ahead and gather your buddies, nugent, but you should know the united states military uses few horses and bayonets these days. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up

in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation,

hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

i got this snapshot thing from progressive, plugged it into my car, and got a discount just for being the good driver i've always been. i'm just out here, snap-shooting it forward. you don't want to have to pay for other people's bad driving, do you? no. with progressive snapshot, you don't have to. i'm going to snap it right now. bam, there it is. goes underneath your dash. keep safe, and keep saving. you know, i won't always be around to save you money. that's why you should get snapshot from progressive. all right, dude! thanks!

to the safe go the savings. and in the big finish tonight, every time you buy your morning coffee or fill up your gas tank, you're paying a transaction fee. every time you buy a new car or a new house or close on that, you're also paying a transaction fee. when big banks and investment companies use computers to make automated high-speed trades or shady derivatives or false swaps, they get off scot-free, don't pay anything. last night 11 members of the european union voted to level the playing field by putting a transaction tax on their markets. that's right. bbc reports the tax is expected to be charged at a rate of 0.1% of the value of any trade in shares or bonds, and 0.01% of any financial derivative contract.

now the 11 european countries feel this tax will discourage risky trading and add billions of dollars to the struggling economies. senator tom harkin of iowa and congressman peter defazio of oregon have been trying to get a similar transaction tax passed in america for years. the proposal would put 3 cent tax on every $100 of stock bonds tax derivatives, saying it would generate $352 billion in ten years. not chump change. think about it for a second. here is 520s. there is $100. visualize this. there is $100. every time there is 100, there is three cents. i better get my piggy bank out here. just like that. that's it. that's it. one hundred, three cents, there you have it. what could we do with $352 billion?

do you think maybe we could pay for at least one of the wars? or do you think maybe we could insure maybe another 30 million people? do the math. that would pay for about half of obama care. that would really make the righties happy. think about it. why is it number one, wall street doesn't get prosecuted. number two, they get off scot-free on these transactions. this is an easy thing, and nobody is going to feel it. everything is going to be fine. joining me tonight, david cay johnston, pulitzer prize winning journalist and author of "the fine print." david cay, grit to have you with us. >> good to be here. >> explain what a high-speed trade is for those that are in the fast lane. >> almost all the trading done today is done with computers that spot prices, changes in the market and execute trades. 2.9 billion trades a day just on the new york stock exchange. there were 40 million a day roughly 30 years ago.

>> what would we do with $352 billion over ten years? >> well, let's see, if you're worried about the deficit, you know, the republicans keep worrying about that. it would help bring it down. it would help us finance, as you pointed out, the affordable care act. there are a lot of things we could do with it that would benefit society in the ways that the high-speed trades do not. >> a study by the cftc shows the average aggressive high-speed trader made a daily profit of 45,267 in a month in 2010. that's some serious coin. how would this tax hurt them? >> well, the trading that they're talking about is speculation. we have a wall street market to marshall capital and make for efficient use of that capital to invest in factories and research and create jobs. but the investors who do that are being pushed out and made irrelevant by the speculators using borrowed money who account

for almost all the trades. 10 what would happen is speculators like that would see their costs go up a little bit. they would be less likely to trade. we would have a more efficient market and fewer distortions for people who are investors rather than speculators. >> do you think it would discourage the risky trading? because this is what they're saying in the european union, that this is one of the reasons why they passed it. >> you know, there is an old saying. if you tax something, you'll get less of it. that is exactly what this is designed to do. it is intended to discourage these high-speed speculative trades that are distorting the markets, making the markets less economically efficient. wall street will come back and say there are studies showing this will make the market worse. those studies are based on more than 20 years ago before we had the high-speed computer trades. >> is there any downside to a tax? >> yeah, if you're a hedge fund manager or one of the high-speed traders, you're going to have to pay some tax and it's going to discourage you from making bets

that distort the market. for the rest of us, i don't see a downside, ed. >> how would we make a determination? because you know they would come back and say oh, this is really going to hurt the economy. how would this hurt the economy? >> i don't see how discouraging speculation, which is almost all done with borrowed money. they effectively borrow money at a rate of 30 to 1. you put 3% down and borrow the rest of the money. i don't see how this hurts the economy. and if we reduce this volatility and reduce market distortion, we can get back to having a market focused on investments that create production in the future and wealth in the future, not creaming the market today through speculation. >> quickly, you think this is something congress could embrace? >> not probably in this congress in the house, but i think this is an idea. it's been around for 80 years. we may well see come about, ed, and hopefully we will. we need speculators, but we don't want them to be overwhelming the m